PiS! 


* 


*"%, 


THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 


LIBRARY 


?t 


•  Ji. 


WON  CIRCULATING 

CHECK  FOR  UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING  COPY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  159 


BALANCED  VS.  UNBALANCED   RATIONS  FOR 

DAIRY    COWS 


BY  WIL,BER  J.  ERASER  AND  CASSIUS  C.  HAYDEN 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  JULY,  1912 


SUMMARY  OF  BULLETIN  No.  159 

1.  This  experiment  was  conducted  with  two  lots  of  nine   cows  each   for 
131  days.     Lot  i  was  fed  a  balanced  ration  and  Lot  2  an  unbalanced  ration. 

Page  238 

2.  Lot    i,    fed   a   ration    with   a   nutritive    ratio   of    i  :6,   produced    12,553.2 
pounds  more  milk  than  Lot  2,  fed  a  ration  with  a  nutritive  ratio  of  1:11.    This 
is  a  difference  of  10.65  pounds  milk  per  cow  per  day.  Page  239 

3.  Lot    i,   receiving  the   narrow   ration,  produced  359.56  pounds  more   fat 
than  Lot  2,  fed  the  wide  ration.  Page  241 

4.  Lot  i,  receiving  a  balanced  ration,  consumed  54.59  pounds  total  digest- 
ible nutrients,  and  Lot  2,  receiving  the  unbalanced  ration,  consumed  71.91  pounds 
total  digestible  nutrients,  per  hundred  pounds  of  milk  produced.  Page  244 

5.  Lot  i,  receiving  a  balanced  ration,  consumed  16.95  pounds  total  digest- 
ible  nutrients,  (and    Lot    2,    receiving    the    unbalanced    ration,    consumed    21.02 
pounds  total  digestible  nutrients,  per  pound  butter  fat  produced.  Page  245 

6.  Conclusion.     The  quality  of  the  ration  fed  affects  the  physical  constitu- 
tion of  the  cow,  which  in  turn  affects  the  consumption  of  feed  and  the  produc- 
tion of  milk.  Page  246 


BALANCED  vs.  UNBALANCED  RATIONS  FOR 
DAIRY  COWS 

BY  WII/BER  J.  FRASER,  CHIEF  IN  DAIRY  HUSBANDRY,  AND 
CASSIUS  C.  HAYDEN,  ASSISTANT  CHIEF  IN  DAIRY  HUSBANDRY 

INTRODUCTION 

The  facts  given  in  the  following  pages  furnish  a  good  example 
of  the  difference  in  value  between  a  well-balanced,  tho  not  ideal, 
and  an  unbalanced  ration.  Altho  the  standard  balanced  ration  for 
dairy  cows  is  fairly  well  determined,  yet  there  are  many  dairymen 
who  still  persist  in  feeding  a  ration  composed  largely  of  corn  and 
such  roughage  as  corn  stover,  timothy  hay,  etc.,  which  make  an 
unbalanced  ration.  Taking  the  above  facts  into  consideration,  the 
Department  of  Dairy  Husbandry  deemed  it  wise  to  conduct  an 
experiment  to  show  the  loss  which  may  be  sustained  by  dairymen 
who  persist  in  feeding  unbalanced  rations. 

Possibly  it  may  be  well  to  call  to  mind  what  is  meant  by  a 
balanced  ration.  A  balanced  ration  is  one  in  which  each  of  the  dif- 
ferent food  materials  or  nutrients  is  present  in  just  the  right  pro- 
portion and  amount  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  animal.  If  ,  there 
is  too  much  of  either  carbohydrates  or  protein,  the  excess  becomes 
a  waste;  if  there  is  too  little  of  either,  the  others  present  will  not 
be  used  to  the  best  advantage.  That  the  last  statements  are  true, 
and  that  there  is  a  large  difference  in  the  amount  of  milk  produced 
from  a  balanced  and  from  an  unbalanced  ration,  has  long  been 
known,  but  it  seems  difficult  for  many  dairymen  to  realize  this 
fact.  They  fail  to  understand  that  quantity  of  feed  cannot  be  made 
to  take  the  place  of  quality  and  that  there  is  a  necessary  connec- 
tion between  the  nutrients  in  the  feed  and  those  in  the  milk ;  hence 
they  are  inclined  to  look  at  the  cow  as  a  machine  which  can  turn 
any  kind  of  feed  which  she  will  eat  into  the  constituents  of  milk. 
She  can  no  more  do  this  than  a  mason  can  build  a  house  with  sand 
and  brick  without  lime  or  cement;  she  may  and  does  change  the 
form  of  the  nutrients  of  the  feed,  but  she  cannot  put  into  her  milk 
what  she  does  not  receive  in  her  feed.  She  will  build  just  so  far. 
as  the  material  supplied  her  will  permit,  or  up  to  the  limit  of  her 
capacity. 

If  a  cow  were  fed  carbohydrates  only,  she  would  die  in  a  short 
time;  if  she  were  fed  fat  only,  she  would  die  in  a  short  time;  if 
she  were  fed  protein  only,  she  would  finally  die.  In  each  case  she 
could  make  no  milk  without  drawing  on  her  body  materials  for 

237 


238  BULLETIN   No.    159  [July, 

some  portion  of  it.  If  the  mason  is  short  of  cement,  he  can  use 
more  sand  and  build  with  a  poorer  mortar,  but  not  so  with  the 
cow;  she  keeps  the  proportions  in  the  milk  practically  the  same, 
and  when  one  material  is  lacking,  the  milk  flow  is  limited  by  it 
regardless  of  how  much  of  the  other  materials  is  present.  Hence 
this  experiment  to  show  the  extent  of  the  losses  involved  in  feed- 
ing unbalanced  rations. 

PLAN  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT 

This  test  started  January  i,  and  continued  until  May  n,  131 
days. 

Twenty  cows  were  divided  into  two  lots  of  ten  each.  The 
two  lots  were  as  nearly  equal  in  production  and  other  character- 
istics as  they  could  be  divided,  taking  into  consideration  both  their 
production  at  the  time  of  the  division  and  their  previous  records. 
Later  it  became  necessary  to  remove  one  cow  from  Lot  I,  and  in 
order  to  keep  the  lots  even  a  cow  was  removed  from  Lot  2  also. 

After  the  two  cows  were  removed,  the  average  milk  produced 
daily  by  Lot  i  during  the  preliminary  week  was  37.8  pounds  per 
cow,  and  that  by  Lot  2,  36.18  pounds'.  This  difference  in  produc- 
tion between  the  lots  was  somewhat  greater  than  it  was  before  the 
two  cows  were  removed.  There  was  a  difference  in  fat  in  favor 
of  Lot  2  which  at  least  partly  counterbalanced  the  difference  in 
milk. 

The  two  lots  stood  in  the  same  line  of  stalls  and  were  treated 
in  every  way  alike  except  in  the  rations  fed.  Previous  to  starting 
the  test  they  were  all  on  the  same  well-balanced  ration,  which  con- 
sisted of  good  clover  hay,  corn  silage,  bran,  corn  meal,  and  Buffalo 
gluten  feed.  The  cows  were  producing  well  on  this  ration,  and 
were  all  in  good  flesh  and  good  physical  condition.  The  treat- 
ment for  several  months  previous  had  been  the  same  for  all  the 
cows. 

The  feeds  in  the  rations  were  maintained  in  the  following  pro- 
portions, each  cow  being  given  all  she  could  eat  up  clean: 

LOT  l  LOT  2 

Corn  silage  30      pounds  Corn  silag-e  30  pounds 

Clover  hay  8  Timothy  hay  5 

Gluten  feed  4%        "  Clover  hay 

Ground  corn  3%         "  Ground  corn  8        " 

The  silage  was  made  from  well-eared,  well-matured  corn,  and 
was  of  fine  quality.  v  The  clover  hay,  timothy  hay,  and  grains  were 
of  good  quality,  and  the  grains  were  finely  ground.  The  ration 
fed  to  Lot  i  contained  i  pound  of  digestible  protein  to  6  pounds 
of  digestible  carbohydrates  and  fat,  which  is  a  well-balanced 


BALANCED  vs.  UNBALANCED  RATIONS  FOR  DAIRY  Cows  239 

ration  for  cows  giving  40  pounds  of  milk  daily.  The  ration  fed 
to  Lot  2  contained  i  pound  of  digestible  protein  to  1 1  pounds  of 
digestible  carbohydrates  and  fats,  which  is  far  too  low  a  propor- 
tion of  protein  for  even  a  dry  cow ;  yet  such  rations  are  frequently 
fed  to  dairy  herds. 

RESULTS 

When  the  change  was  made  from  the  preliminary  ration  to 
the  test  rations,  the  cows  in  both  lots  decreased  in  milk  flow,  but 
Lot  2,  receiving  the  unbalanced  ration,  decreased  much  more  rap- 
idly. This  decrease  continued  in  Lot  2  until  that  lot  was  pro- 
ducing but  little  more  than  two-thirds  as  much  as  Lot  i.  At  the 
end  of  the  131  days  the  cows  in  Lot  i  were  in  practically  as  good 
condition  as  when  the  test  started,  but  those  in  Lot  2  ran  down 
so  rapidly  in  both  flesh  and  condition  that  after  90  days  the  chang- 
ing of  their  ration  and  the  terminating  of  the  experiment  were 
seriously  considered.  This  great  difference  was  due  to  the  lack 
of  protein  in  the  ration  fed  to  Lot  2  and  the  lack  of  palatability 
in  the  timothy  hay,  of  which  the  cows  could  not  be  induced  to  eat 
large  amounts.  Tho  the  timothy  was  cut  and  mixed  with  the 
clover,  they  managed  to  pick  out  the  clover  and  ate  the  timothy 
only  when  forced  to  do  so.  It  was  practically  impossible  to  induce 
the  cows  in  Lot  2  to  consume  enough  feed  to  supply  sufficient  pro- 
tein for  large  quantities  of  milk. 

Just  such  rations  are  fed  to  many  Illinois  dairy  herds,  the 
owner  believing  that  it  is  only  necessary  to  supply  an  abundance 
of  feed,  almost  regardless  of  quality.  When  such  unbalanced  ra- 
tions are  fed,  the  cows  do  not  keep  in  good  physical  condition  and 
therefore  cannot  consume  as  large  quantities  of  feed  nor  produce 
as  much  milk. 

Lot  i,  receiving  the  better  ration,  ate  larger  quantities  of  feed 
with  greater  relish,  and  kept  in  rnuch  better  physical  condition. 
They  not  only  ate  more  feed,  but  made  much  better  returns  per 
100  pounds  of  feed  consumed.  Seldom  were  any  of  the  cows  in 
Lot  i  "off  feed,"  but  in  Lot  2  this  frequently  occurred. 

RESULTS  IN  PRODUCTION  OP  MILK 

Table  i  shows  that  the  average  difference  in  milk  per  cow  per 
day  during  the  preliminary  week  was  1.7  pounds  in  favor  of  Lot 
i,  which  received  the  better  ration.  During  the  first  week  of  the 
test  this  difference  increased  to  5.8  pounds  per  cow  per  day,  dur- 
ing the  seventh  week  to  13.2,  and  during  the  last  five  days  to  12.2 
pounds. 

The  average  difference  per  cow  per  day  for  the  19  weeks  \vas 
10.65  pounds,  and  the  total  difference  between  the  two  lots  was 


240 


BULLETIN   No.   159 


[July, 


TABLE  1. — AMOUNT  OF  MILK  PRODUCED  BY  EACH  L,OT  PER  WEEK,  DIFFERENCE 
PER  WEEK,  AND  DIFFERENCE  PER  Cow  PER  DAY 


Pounds  milk  per  week 

Pounds  differ- 

Week 

Lot  1 

L,ot  2 

Difference] 

ence  per  cow 
per  day 

Preliminary 

2384.7 

2279.3 

105.4 

1.7 

1 

2315.8 

19476 

368.2 

5.8 

2 

2189.6 

1811.8 

377.8 

6.0 

3 

2205.1 

1739.4 

465.7 

7.4 

4 

2259.0 

1652.9 

606  1 

9.6 

5 

2271.6 

1581.1 

690.5 

11.0 

6 

2229.7 

1537.0 

692  7 

11.0 

7 

2253.8 

1421.8 

832.0 

13.2 

8 

2259.5 

1467.1 

792.4 

12.6 

9 

2198.7 

1423.4 

775.3 

12.3 

10 

2121.3 

1381.2 

740.1 

11.7 

11 

1990.9 

1289.0 

701.9 

11.1 

12 

1986.6 

1293.6 

693.0 

11.0 

13 

2000.6 

1265.1 

735  5 

11.7 

14 

1989.1 

1297.5 

691.6 

11.0 

15 

1961.8 

1238.7 

723.1 

11.5 

16  > 

1976.1 

1242.0 

734.1 

11.7 

17 

1918.8 

1232.1 

686  7 

10.9 

18 

1905  81 

1210.1 

695.7 

11.0 

5  days 

1359.2 

808.4 

550.8 

122 

Total 

39393  0 

268398 

12553.2 

10.65 

12,553.2  pounds.  The  initial  difference  of  105.4  pounds  of  milk 
per  week  between  the  two  lots,  if  carried  thru  the  entire  test  would 
amount  to  a  total  of  1,973  pounds.  This  difference  taken  from  the 
12,553.2  leaves  10,580.2  pounds  directly  due  to  the  difference  in 
the  rations.  This  difference  for  the  lot  during  therentire  period, 
due  to  the  poor  ration,  was  equal  to  2l/2  times  the  average  pro- 
duction of  the  cows  fed  the  good  ration.  In  other  words,  six 
and  one-half  cows  receiving  the  balanced  ration  produced  as  much 
milk  as  the  nine  cows  fed  the  unbalanced  ration.  10,580  pounds 
of  milk  at  $1.50  per  hundred  would  be  worth  $158.70,  the  loss 
on  nine  cows  for  131  days,  which  is  $17.63  per  cow,  or  practically 
I3C  per  cow  per  day.  There  was  little  difference  in  the  average 
cost  per  hundred  pounds  of  feed  in  the  two  rations.  The  timothy 
hay  in  the  poor  ration  cost  more  than  the  clover  hay  in  the  good 
ration,  while  the  gluten  feed  in  the  good  ration  cost  more  than 
the  corn  meal  in  the  poor  ration. 

In  Fig.  i  the  space  between  each  two  horizontal  lines  represents 
20  pounds  of  milk  and  the  space  between  each  two  vertical  lines 
represents  one  week's  time,  as  indicated  by  the  figures  at  the  top 
and  sides. 


BALANCED  vs.  UNBALANCED  RATIONS  FOR  DAIRY  Cows 


241 


January. 

11/4 


February 
//   /8 


£60 
£40 


FIG  1.    AVERAGE  AMOUNT  OF  MII,K  PRODUCED  PER  Cow  IN  EACH  LOT 

The  shaded  portion  from  the  line  O'-O  to  the  line  A-B  repre- 
sents the  average  amount  of  milk  produced  per  cow  by  Lot  i, 
getting  the  balanced  ration.  The  double  shaded  portion  from  the 
line  O-O  to  the  line  C-D  represents  the  average  amount  of  milk 
produced  per  cow  by  Lot  2,  receiving  the  unbalanced  ration.  In 
other  words,  the  space  between  the  lines  A-B  and  C-D  represents 
the  difference  in  milk  produced  per  co\v  between  the  two  lots. 

RESULTS  IN  PRODUCTION  OF  BUTTER  FAT 

Table  2  shows  that  the  production  of  fat  varied  in  a  manner 
similar  to  that  of  the  milk.  For  one  week  previous  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  test  each  cow  in  Lot  2  produced  .09  pounds  of  fat 
more  per  day  than  each  cow  in  Lot  i,  5.9  pounds  more  for  the 
entire  lot  for  the  week.  . 

At  the  close  of  the  first  week  of  the  test  there  was  a  difference 
of  4.69  pounds  of  fat  in  favor  of  Lot  i,  making  the  difference 
from  that  of  the  previous  week  in  production  of  the  two  lots, 
10.59  pounds.  The  average  difference  per  week  was  19.18  pounds. 

The  total  difference  in  production  of  fat  between  the  two  lots 
for  the  131  days  was  359.56  pounds.  This  is  equivalent  to  2}/> 
times  the  average  production  of  the  cows  in  Lot  i ;  that  is,  six 


242 


BULLETIN   No.   159 


[July, 


TABLE  2.— AMOUNT  OF  BUTTER  FAT  PRODUCED  BY  EACH  L/OT  PER  WEEK, 
DIFFERENCE  PER  WEEK,  AND  DIFFERENCE  PER  Cow  PER  DAY 


Pounds  butter  fat  per  week 

Pounds  differ- 

Week 

L,ot  1 

L,ot  2 

Difference 

ence  per  cow 
per  day 

Preliminary 

77.58 

83.48 

—5.90 

—.09 

1 

76.47 

71.78 

4.69 

.07 

2 

65.15 

59.21 

5.94 

.09 

3 

68.81 

56.24 

12.57 

.20 

4 

71  66 

54.87 

16.79 

.27 

5 

70.76 

48.30 

22.46 

.36 

6 

71.10 

50.31 

20.79 

.33 

7 

70.67 

46.52 

24,15 

.38 

8 

70.21 

46.22 

23.99 

.38 

9 

70.30 

46.47 

23.83 

.38 

10 

70.37 

46.85 

23.52 

.37 

11 

66.52 

44.46 

22.06 

.35 

12 

66.02 

46.08 

19.94 

.32 

13 

65.55 

42.75 

22.80 

.36 

14 

63.55 

44.33 

19.22 

.31 

15 

63.58 

41.67 

21.91 

.35 

16 

62.71 

41.83 

20.88 

.33 

17 

62.57 

41.80 

20.77 

.33 

18 

59.62 

39.98 

19.64 

.31 

5  days 

41.67 

28.06 

13.61 

.30 

Total 

1257.29 

897.73 

359.56 

.305  + 

and  one-half  cows  on  the  balanced  ration  produced  as  much  fat 
as  the  nine  cows  on  the  unbalanced  ration.  This  359  pounds  of 
butter  fat  at  25  cents  per  pound  would  be  worth  $89.75.  The 
loss  on  nine  cows  would  be  practically  $10  per  cow,  besides  the 
loss  of  skim  milk,  the  injury  to  the  cows,  and  the  effect  on  their 
future  production.  This  does  not  take  into  account  the  initial 
difference  in  butter  fat  between  the  two  lots,  which,  if  added  thru 
the  entire  period,  \vould  make  the  difference  in  favor  of  the  good 
ration  much  greater. 

In  Fig.  2  the  space  between  each  two  horizontal  lines  represents 
one  pound  of  butter  fat  and  the  space  between  each  two  vertical 
lines  represents  one  week's  time,  as  indicated  by  the  figures  at  the 
top  and  sides. 

The  shaded  portion  from  the  line  O-O  to  the  line  A-B  repre- 
sents the  average  number  of  pounds  of  fat  produced  per  cow  by 
Lot  i,  getting  the  balanced  ration,  and  the  double  shaded  portion 
from  the  line  O-O  to  the  line  C-D  represents  the  average  number 
of  pounds  of  fat  produced  per  cow  by  Lot  2,  receiving  the  un- 
balanced ration.  In  other  words,  the  space  between  the  lines  A-B 
and  C-D  represents  the  difference  in  fat  produced  per  cow  between 
the  two  lots. 


BALANCED  vs.  UNBALANCED  RATIONS  FOR  DAIRY  Cows 


243 


January. 
7     /4  21 


February.  March. 

//    /8   2S  4     //    /8 


f\pril. 
8    /S 


FIG.  2.  AVERAGE  AMOUNT  OF  BUTTER  FAT  PRODUCED  PER  Cow  IN  EACH 


It  will  be  noticed  by  Figs.  I  and  2  that  it  took  between  four 
and  five  weeks  for  both  lots  to  settle  down  to  approximately  uni- 
form production  from  these  rations.  This  emphasizes  the  necessity 
of  continuing  such  experiments  for  a  long  period  of  time  before 
anything  like  rational  conclusions  can  be  drawn.  Had  the  re- 
sults of  the  first  five  weeks  been  excluded,  the  difference  in  pro- 
duction from  the  two  rations  would  have  been  much  greater,  and 
would  have  been  a  more  accurate  comparison  of  the  real  efficiency 
of  the  two  rations. 


DIFFERENCE  IN  FEED  CONSUMED 

It  was  very  difficult  to  keep  the  different  feeds  in  the  ration  for 
Lot  2  in  the  exact  proportions  previously  mentioned,  because  the 
cows  did  not  readily  consume  the  timothy  hay;  but  the  balance,  or 
ratio  of  protein  to  carbohydrates  and  fat,  was  not  materially 
changed.  Because  of  the  lack  of  protein  and  palatability  in  the  ra- 
tion, the  cows  in  this  lot  ran  down  rapidly  in  flesh  and  condition, 
and  for  these  reasons  they  were  not  able  to  make  the  best  use  of 
the  feed  consumed. 

The  total  amount  of  feed  consumed  by  Lot  I  was  59,840 
pounds,  and  that  consumed  by  Lot  2,  52,720  pounds,  a  difference 
of  7,120  pounds,  which  is  13.5  percent.  The  percentage  of  grain 
was  a  little  greater  in  the  ration  for  Lot  2,  which  would  tend  to 
give  this  lot  the  advantage.  The  feed  eaten  by  Lot  i  contained 


244  BULLETIN   No.    159  [July, 

2 1, 1 20  pounds  of  digestible  nutrients,  and  that  consumed  by  Lot 
2  contained  18,768  pounds,  a  difference  of  2,352  pounds.  This 
shows  that  Lot  I  consumed  12.5  percent  more  digestible  nutrients 
than  Lot  '2.  Since  the  cows  in  Lot  2  consumed  a  smaller  amount 
of  feed  and  were  practically  the  same  size  as  those  in  Lot  i,  a 
larger  percentage  of  the  nutrients  would  be  required  for  main- 
tenance, but  they  were  not  maintained,  and  a  part  of  the  milk 
produced  was  at  the  expense  of  body  weight. 

NUTRIENTS  PER  UNIT  OF  PRODUCT 

The  cows  receiving  the  balanced  ration  not  only  consumed 
more  digestible  nutrients  but  they  also  made  better  returns  per 
one  hundred  pounds  of  nutrients  consumed.  The  following  tables 
show  the  relation  between  the  milk  and  fat  produced  and  the  nutri- 
ents consumed. 

Tables  3  and  4  show  that  the  nutrients  consumed  per  100 
pounds  of  milk  produced  varied  decidedly  between  the  cows  in 
the  same  lot.  In  Lot  i  the  variation  in  protein  was  from  5.76 
to  10.37  pounds,  in  carbohydrates  from  33.52  to  59.74  pounds,  in 
fat  from  2.39  to  '4-38  pounds,  and  in  total  nutrients  from  44.66 
to  79.97  pounds;  in  Lot  2  the  protein  varied  from  4.77  to  7.36 
pounds,  the  carbohydrates  from  46.99  to  72.85  pounds,  the  fat 
from  2.43  to  3.73  pounds,  and  the  total  nutrients  from  57.23  to 
88.60  pounds. 

The  average  amounts  of  nutrients  consumed  per  100  pounds 
milk  produced  w^ere  as  follows:  Lot  i,  protein  7.12  pounds,  carbo- 
hydrates 40.71  pounds,  fat  3.00  pounds,  and  total  nutrients  54.59 
pounds;  Lot  2,  protein  5.99  pounds,  carbohydrates  59.12  pounds, 
fat  3.03  pounds,  and  total  nutrients  71.91  pounds.  Lot  2  consumed 
15.9  percent  less  protein,  and  45.2  percent  more  carbohydrates,  or 
33.7  percent  more  total  nutrients  per  100  pounds  of  milk  produced. 
While  the  cows  in  Lot  2  consumed  less  protein  per  100  pounds  milk 
produced,  they  lost  greatly  in  weight,  and  undoubtedly  a  portion  of 
this  protein  was  used  at  the  expense  of  their  bodies. 

The  above  discussion  shows  that  the  lot  getting  the  balanced 
ration  was  able  to  consume  12.5  percent  more  nutrients  and  to 
make  33.7  percent  better  use  of  the  nutrients  consumed. 


BALANCED  vs.  UNBALANCED  RATIONS  FOR  DAIRY  Cows 


245 


TABLES.  —AMOUNT  OF  MILK  PRODUCED  BY  EACH  Cow  IN  L,OT  1,  AND  AMOUNT 
OF  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  MILK  PRODUCED 


Cow- 

Milk 

Digestible  nutrients  consumed  per  100  pounds  milk 

No. 

produced 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

Total  nutrients* 

1 

4083.1 

5.76 

33.52 

2.39 

44.66 

2 

4317.2 

7.03 

40.24 

2.99 

54.00 

3 

3242.6 

10.37 

59.74 

4.38 

79.97 

4 

4552.6 

6.64 

37.57 

2.80 

50.51 

5 

5140.2 

6.28 

35.86 

2.66 

48.13 

6 

4373.0 

6.85 

39.04 

2.89 

52.39 

.     7 

4404.9 

7.85 

44.58 

3.31 

59.88 

8 

5473.1 

6  30 

35.85 

2.66 

48.14 

9 

3806.3 

7.01 

39.96 

2.96 

53.63 

Average 

4377.0 

7.12 

40.71 

3.00 

54.59 

TABLE  4.— AMOUNT  OK  MILK  PRODUCED  BY  EACH  Cow  IN  L/OT2,  AND  AMOUNT 
o»  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  MILK  PRODUCED 


Cow 

Milk 

Digestible  nutrients  consumed  per  100  pounds  milk 

No. 

produced 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

Total  nutrients* 

1 

2008.5 

6.30 

62.52 

3.18 

75.97 

2 

2329.9 

6.73 

66.79 

3.47 

•    81.33 

3 

4123.2 

4.77 

46.99 

2.43 

57.23 

4 

3520.5 

5.59 

53.79 

2.77 

65.61 

5 

3913.1 

4.91 

48.52 

2.52 

59.10 

6 

3317.7 

5.68 

55.98 

2.86 

68.10 

7 

2487.7 

7.36 

72.85 

3.73 

88.60 

8 

2626.3 

6.95 

69.00 

3.50 

83.83 

9 

2512.9 

5.63 

55.67 

2.82 

67.65 

Average 

2982.2 

5.99 

59.12 

3.03 

71.91 

Tables  5  and  6  show  that  the  nutrients  consumed  per  pound  of 
fat  produced  were  as  follows :  In  Lot  i  the  protein  varied  from 
1.78  to  2.78  pounds,  with  an  average  of  2.21  pounds;  the  carbohy- 
drates varied  from  10.45  to  16.01  pounds,  with  an  average  of 
12.65  pounds;  the  fat  varied  from  .75  to  1.17  pounds,  with  an 
average  of  .93  pounds.  In  Lot  2  the  protein  varied  from  1.31 
to  2.11  pounds,  with  an  average  of  1.75  pounds;  the  carbohydrates 
varied  from  12.90  to  20.32  pounds,  with  an  average  of  17.28 
pounds;  the  fat  varied  from  .65  to  1.05  pounds,  with  an  average 
of  .89  pounds.  This  shows  that  in  producing  a  pound  of  fat  24 
percent  more  total  nutrients  were  used  with  the  poorly  balanced 
ration.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  difference  is  not  so  great  as  in 
the  case  of  the  milk. 


*To  obtain  the  total  nutrients,  the  fat  was  multiplied  by  2%  because 
fat  contains  2^f  times  as  much  energy  as  an  equal  weight  of  carbohydrates 
or  protein. 


246 


BULLETIN  No.  159 


[July,  1912. 


TABLE  5.— AMOUNI    OK  FAT   PRODUCED    BY    EACH    Cow    IN  L/OT    1,     AND 
AMOUNT  OF  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED  PER  POUND  OF  FAT  PRODUCED 


Cow 

Butter  fat 

Digestible  nutrients  consumed  per  1  Ib.   fat 

No. 

produced 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

Total   nutrients 

1 

131.00 

1.78 

10.45 

.75 

13.92 

2 

118.15 

2.57 

14.70 

1.09 

19.72 

3 

121.00 

2.78 

16.01 

1.17 

21.42 

4 

136.73 

2.21 

12.52 

.93 

16  82 

5 

150.16 

2.15 

12.27 

.91 

16  47 

6 

153.53 

1.95 

11.12 

.82 

14.92 

7 

152.31 

2.27 

12.89 

.96  . 

17.32 

8 

172.31 

2.00 

11.39 

.84 

15.28 

9 

122.10 

2.18 

12.46 

.92 

V   16.71 

Average 

139  70 

2.21 

12.65 

.93 

16.95 

TABI,E   6. — AMOUNT   OF  FAT    PRODUCED   BY    BACH  Cow  IN    L/OT   2,     AND 
1     AMOUNT  OF  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED  PER  POUND  OF  FAT  PRODUCED 


Cow 

Butter  fat 

Digestible  nutrients  consumed  per  1  Ib.  fat 

No. 

produced 

Protein 

Carbohydrates 

Fat 

Total   nutrients 

1 

88.43 

1.43 

14.20 

72 

17.25 

2 

85.13 

1.84 

18.28 

.95 

22.26 

3 

112.66 

,      1.75 

17.20 

.88 

20.93 

4 

93.18 

2.11 

20.32 

1.05 

24.79 

5 

117.37 

1.64 

16  17 

.84 

19.70 

6 

94.37 

2.00 

19.68 

1.01 

23.95 

7 

92.62 

1.98 

19.56 

1.1.0 

23.79 

8 

105.54 

1.73 

17.17 

.87 

20.86 

9 

108.43 

1.31 

12.90 

.65 

15.67 

Aver.ige 

99  75 

1.75 

17.28 

.89 

21.02 

CONCLUSION 

The  quality  of  the  ration  affects  the  physical  condition  of  the 
animal,  and  the  physical  condition  vitally  affects  consumption  and 
production.  The  cows  on  the  poor  ration  lost  greatly  in  flesh  dur- 
ing the  test  and  their  subsequent  production  was  reduced. 

Lot  i,  receiving  the  balanced  ration,  produced  approximately 
one-third  more  than  Lot  2,  receiving  the  unbalanced  ration.  Six 
and  one-half  cows  on  a  ration  with  a. nutritive  ratio  of  i  :6  pro- 
duced as  much  as  nine  cows  on  a  ration  with  a  nutritive  ratio  of 
i  :n. 

Because  of  the  lack  of  protein  in  the  ration  fed  Lot  2,  the 
other  nutrients  were  not  used  to  the  best  advantage.  This  shows 
in  a  striking  manner  that  an  excess  of  carbohydrates  cannot  be 
made  to  take  the  place  of  a  deficiency  of  protein. 


i 

£*+A 


r 

V 


*.** 


v 


m 


*• 

y 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

Q.630.7IL6B  C001 

BULLETIN.  URBANA 
153-1651912-13 


30112019528428 


